Choice of Better Laboratory Technique for the Preparation of Microspheres Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process: A Case

1. Choice of Better Laboratory Technique for the Preparation of Microspheres Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process: A Case Study OTECH - 8 P.Venkatesan Lecturer , Annamalai university Annamalainagar 608002 Tamilnadu, India

2. Choice of Better Laboratory Technique for the Preparation of Microspheres Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process: A Case Study P.Venkatesan1*, C.Muralitharan2, R.Manavalan1 and K.Valliappan1 Annamalai university, Annamalainagar, Tamilnadu, India.

3. The objective of the case study is to select an appropriate technique that would deliver the quality product with reproducibility of release profile and consistency with good entrapment efficiency by applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique. OBJECTIVE

4. INTRODUCTION Microencapsulation Microencapsulation is a process by which relatively thin coatings are applied to small particles of solids or droplets of liquids and dispersions. They usually have particle size ranging from several tenths of a micron to 5000 micron

5. APPLICATIONS • This technology has been used widely in the design of controlled release and sustained release dosage forms. • To mask the bitter taste of drugs like Paracetamol, Nitrofurantoin etc. • To reduce gastric and other G.I. tract irritations. • A liquid can be converted to a pseudo-solid for easy handling and storage. eg.Eprazinone. • To provide protection to the core materials against atmospheric effects, e.g. Vit.A.Palmitate.

6. METHODS OF MICROENCAPSULATION • Air Suspension Coating • Thermal Change • Incompatible Polymer Addition • Non-Solvent Addition • Salt Addition • Polymer-Polymer Interaction • Multi orifice - Centrifugal Process • Solvent Evaporation • Spray Drying and Spray Congealing • Pan Coatings • Coacervation Phase Separation.

7. ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) Analytical Hierarchy Process developed by Thomas L.Saaty is one of the very effective Multi criteria decision making (MCDM) Model.This has been employed very successfully in many situations where a decision situation is characterized by a multitude of complementary and conflicting factors.

8. Saaty’s nine-point comparison scale

9. METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL WORK The case study was conducted with an objective to choose the better technique between four alternatives, namely Solvent Evaporation (SET), Coacervation Phase Separation (CAP) Pan Coatings (PAN) Spray Drying and Spray Congealing (SPR) for carrying out microencapsulation.

10. Overall objective Identify relevant criteria Identify alternatives to be rated Develop matrix of pair wise comparison of Calculate normalized weights of criteria Calculate consistency ratio (CR) of pairwise comparison matrix IS CR  0.10 NO yes

11. Develop matrix of pairwise alternatives with respect to each Calculate normalised weights of alternatives consistency ratio of pair wise comparison of alternatives Choose a the next IS CR  0.10 NO yes Have alternatives been compared NO yes Calculate the overall weight of each alternative Choose the best alternative NO yes

14. Using the AHP model the priority weights, [PR_WT], to the attributes and sub-attributes are calculated by pair wise comparison matrix

16. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • In the case study, AHP technique was applied to make choice amongst alternative microencapsulation techniques (SET/CAP/PAN/SPR) and thereby opt the best technique. • The composite score is used for the final ranking of the alternatives. The solution of the problem involves finding the composite score that reflects the relative priorities of all the alternatives at the lowest level of the hierarchy.

19. It is seen here that, PI is most important (priority = 0.421) followed by OS (priority = 0.261) and so on. • In the next level of comparison, sub-attributes are compared with each other with respect to an attribute at a higher level. For instance, within PI the sub-attributes PS, PC are compared . Similarly in all the other sub-attributes are compared . • The composite score favored the selection of SET (score=0.5216) over CAP (score=0.3059), PAN (score=0.0645), SPR (score=0.0769) for microencapsulation technique

20. CONCLUSION • In today competitive scenario, an effective framework for selecting a technique for the preparation of microspheres using AHP as MCDM tool is presented in this case study here. • This approach is a systematic one and it includes both quantitative and qualitative factors. Software for computing priority weights can be easily developed else commercial software (expert choice) is available.

21. The factors considered here are illustrative only and these may vary from case to case . • The proposed approach can be extended to other situations like selection of alternatives such as tablets formulation machines, characterization technique like pharmacokinetic studies, release behavior, drug content, etc.

22. Mine Qrlu, Erdal Cevher, Ahmet Araman(2006). Design and evaluation of colon specific drug delivery system containing flurbiprofen microspheres. International Journal of pharmaceutics. Doi:10.1016/J.ijpharm. 2006.03.025. • Frederic Lagarcea,b et al(2004).Baclofen loded microspheres:Preparation and efficacy testing in a rabbit model. European journal of pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 59:449-459. References

23. microspheres containing Zedoary turmeric oil by the emulsion– solvent-diffusion method and evaluation of the self-emulsification and bioavailability of the oil.colloides and surfaces B:Biointerfaces 48:35-41. • Khawla Abu-Izza et al (1996).Preparation and evaluation of Zidovudine- Loded sustained release microspheres: Optimization of multiple response Variables. Journal of Pharmaceutical sciences85:572-575. • Yan Gao. et.al(2006).Preparation of roxithromycin-polymeric microspheres by the emulsion solvent diffusion method for the taste masking.international journal of pharmaceutics. Doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.03.018.

24. Thank You